Allah = Hubal = Baal?

Originally posted by darkelf
I believe that alot of Christmas traditions are based on pagan rituals.

Actually you're right, many Christian rituals have their root in the cult of Mithras (a religion of Persian origin, loads of info can be found on the
web) which was extremely prevalent throughout the Roman Empire. It was especially beloved of the army, probably due to it's promotion of order and
the idea of a constant struggle against the forces of darkness and disorder. December the 25th was the date of birth (in the Roman calender) of the
god Mithras. The fusion of Christianity and Mithraism was essential to make Christianity a "popular" and official religion, after all, what chances
would the Emperor have if the official religion was christianity and the whole army worshipped Mithras. There are other similarities between the two
religions:

"Mithras had been born in a stable with animals and shepherds present. The Mithras rituals included the consumption of flesh from sacrificed bulls,
sprinkling of holy bull's blood on congregants, breaking and eating loaves of bread with the shape of a cross (a Mithraic symbol) impressed on them,
drinking wine mixed with water, altars with crosses, and priests with vestment symbols which were similar to some Catholic and Orthodox priestly
symbols."

There are more than 10 confirmed Mithras temples in Britain (there is even one in London) and they were construced in the third and early fourth
centuries AD.

Atheists (especially the anti-christian ones) seem to really enjoy stating that christianity is based or evolved from pagan religions.
This is sad because such a subjective attitude does not allow them to actually found how what is really true, and what evidence we really have today
to make such claims.

"mithraeum dated to A.D. 80-85 which points to the possible presence of a Mithraic cult before the end of the first century A.D"

This indicates that the Author of the article does not consider Mithraism to exist before this time. In fact There were a line of Kings in Pontus (a
whole string in fact) whose names were Mithridites, a name that is recognised to be a derivation of the god Mithras.

Again from the article:

"Most critics are unaware that there are two distinct forms of this pagan mystery religion under the same name - Mithra. They are Roman Mithraism,
and Iranian Mithraism. Critics more times than not confuse the two forms in an attempt to trace Roman Mithraism as far back as they can. However,
these two versions of Mithraism have no direct connection with each other. Critics respond to this by saying:

"...Mithraism arose in the region of what is now Iran and spread to Rome. Roman forms of worship may have been different than those in
Persia/Iran, but to say that there's no direct connection is like saying that the Russian Orthodox Church has no direct connection to Pentecostal
Christian sects in North America - both are forms of Christianity.

These types of comments are very prevalent on the internet, but there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence to directly connect the two beliefs. In
fact, they are totally independent of each other. Let me explain: As mentioned earlier, the tauroctony (bull-slaying scene) of Roman Mithraism was
located in the most important place in every mithraeum (temple). Thus, if the god Mithras of the Roman religion was actually the Iranian god Mithra,
we should expect to find in Iranian mythology a story in which Mithra kills a bull"

The bull-slaying was, in fact, an act associated with sun worship (whis is ostensibly the root of many ancient religions) from India through Persia,
the East, Greece (Sacrifice of a bull to Apollo) and through to Rome (although bull Worship was prevalent in Celtic Spain). Why the Bull? Many ancient
cultures considered the bull the most potent symbol of human fertility (also consider the bull/centaurs at Persepolis).

The author of the article is evidently unwilling to accept that religions/cults evolve in ANY way whatsoever. Many things change over time (and also
very importantly distance in the ancient world). He also bemoans lack of evidence, which is also a flaw in his little article, all the "evidence" he
sites is no more valid that that of the Belgian Archaeologist Franz Cumont who first made the investigations.

Mithra cult is very very old, it predates christianity by millenia. It has changed shape quite often though.
Zarathustra made a significant reform, which contains many of characteristics later also atributed to Jesus.
When connecting it with christianity the following parts are relevant:

"The reformation of Zarathustra retained the hundreds of Persian deities, assembling them into a complex hierarchical system of 'Immortals' and
'Adored Ones' under the rule of either Ahura- Mazda or Ahriman. Within this vast pantheon, Mithras gained the title of 'Judger of Souls'.
He became the divine representative of Ahura-Mazda on earth, and was directed to protect the righteous from the demonic forces of Ahriman.
Mithras was called omniscient, undeceivable, infallible, eternally watchful, and never-resting.

*snip. snip*

Ahura-Mazda was said to have created Mithras to be as great and worthy as himself. He would fight the spirits of evil to protect the creations of
Ahura-Mazda and cause even Ahriman to tremble. Mithras was seen as the protector of just souls from demons seeking to drag them down to Hell, and the
guide of these souls to Paradise. As Lord of the Sky, he took the role of psychopomp, conducting the souls of the righteous dead to paradise.

*snip, snip*

According to Persian traditions, the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour expected by Zarathustra. Mithras was
born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation. "

From this very place of Mithra worship, the three wise men came to Mary to tell her all about her "special" son...

So, all these myths and stories existed BEFORE Jesus, he is one of many sons of God born of a virgin, that idea is not new. It is also a part of
egyptian and greek mythology, of course each with its own distinct characteristics.

Christianity has a lot in common with pagan religions.
Only the first ever religion on Earth was a "new" religion, all others simply sprung from already existent religions and absorbed traditions of the
people who accepted the newly created religion first.

This thread is about Allah being a moongod. While that theory doesn't really fit with evidence, it is very much clear that Islam is simply an
off-shot of Judaism. It is not a new religion. It contains hebrew laws, hebrew strict monotheistic way of worship, etc, etc.
Christianity has more in common with certain pagan religions then the other two Yahweh worshippers, but it also contains a lot of hebrew elements.

We all have a lot more incommon when it comes to religions then we think. These many similarities should serve as a way to unite us, instead we focus
on differences to divide us. Sad really.

Originally posted by Jakko
It is not "truth" that christianity borrowed anything from any pagan religion, there are always theories and assumptions though.

They may not have borrowed anything, but they gave Christian meaning to alot of pagan practices.

Atheists (especially the anti-christian ones) seem to really enjoy stating that christianity is based or evolved from pagan religions.
This is sad because such a subjective attitude does not allow them to actually found how what is really true, and what evidence we really have today
to make such claims.

I stated that I am a Christian. And I never said that Christianity was based on pagan practices. I only stated that alot of our holiday
practices are based on pagan rituals. If you don't believe me, you can google Christian pagan holidays. You will get quite a large list
including Christmas, Easter and halloween practices that are ALL based on pagan rituals and beliefs.

On the contrary Jesus Mithras paralel is the same as ALLAH hubal ball, so if it can be jesus eq mithras then allah is jaust another instant religion
package which had to be on something from pagan to be built.
I could slightly agree it is. Sticking to the subject is not only talking about islam but the background story for monotheism to prevail.

The problem with this theory lies in the beginning if Islam itself. At this time Mecca was the hub for various religeous idols, all being brought by
traders from various parths of Arabia. After Muhammud's return to Mecca from his vision of God, he destroyed all false idols other than the one true
god. One of the idols that was destroyed was Hubal. Muhammud knew him as a false idol.

In Hebrew, the word for their god is Eloheim. This is a singular word that has been pluralized with the suffix eim. The Hebrew scripture is
written with the absence of vowels. Therefore, in Hebrew, this word is represented as L H M (but in Hebrew characters of course).

The Jews say that the vowels that fall between these consonants are E,O, and the eim suffix which makes the full word Eloheim.

However, due to the seriousness of the Muslim belief in only one god, they reject the plurality of this word and therefore reject the suffix; leaving
them with L H. When the Muslims fill in the vowels that they feel fall between these consonants, they insert A and A while adding an
additional L following the already present L for phoenetic purposes; thus creating the word Allah.

This is how it has been described to me by my professor of religion who is fluent in Hebrew and is currently guest teaching a summer course at Oxford
on Paradox in Religion - I find him a fairly credible source, don't you?

So there is a literal connection/descendancy of the Hebrew god and the Islamic god Allah!!

Just thought that I would add this to the forum. Although because of its length I haven't read through the entire thread, I felt like there was a
little bit of ignorance circulating along with the mob mentality of let's bash on the Muslims along with other religions.

I hope this adds to the discussion.

[note: This means that Allah is NOT Baal - just thought I'd make that clear]

It isn't "God" or "Allah" or "Hubal" you have to worry about. "At the name of JESUS every knee shall bow..." "All judgement has been
committed unto the Son." "...It is appointed unto man, once to die, and after this, the judgement." What have you done with JESUS?

Originally posted by Jakko
After doing some reading into conversations and discussions between christians and islamics on the "answering christianity" and "answering islam"
sites I found some interesting historical information about Allah and how the worship of Allah started, unveiling a conspiracy about who or what Allah
really is, and who Islamic people have been worshipping all these years...

It is a long read so I picked out the most important part, all the background info can be found in the link.

In conclusion, we need to emphasize that these facts remain. The OT explicitly denies the Muslim assertion that the pre-Islamic Ishmaelites knew
and worshiped the true God and that their only problem was that they associated other gods with him. The data conclusively shows that as the centuries
unfolded the Ishmaelites forsook the God of their ancestors Abraham and Jacob, Yahweh Elohim, for the worship of some false god. The false god whom
they worshiped as the true God was quite possibly Baal. The data also shows that Hubal was the high god worshiped at Mecca, which supports the view
that he was the Allah of pre-Islamic times.

We started out with a quotation from the Psalms identifying the Ishmaelites as enemies of God. Even though the thesis of this paper was argued on the
basis of the assumption that the Meccans are Ishmaelites the conclusion does not depend on this assumption. Most of the quotations we have cited to
support our argument do not mention Ishmaelites at all.

The Biblical and historical evidence shows that the Moabites worshiped Baal. The pre-Islamic and Muslim sources show (a) that the Meccans took over
the idol Hubal from the Moabites and (b) that Allah and Hubal are actually identical. Thus, whether the Meccans are Ishmaelites or not, the evidence
is still strong and sufficient to conclude that Muhammad's Allah is actually Hubal, i.e. the Baal of the Moabites and thus not the God of the Bible.
Muhammad incorporated the characteristics and names of various other gods into his new monotheistic message about Allah, but he apparently started the
construction of Allah with Hubal, the chief god of the Meccans.

To me it is quite a revelation to find out that the Allah as we know it today, is actually the god that people first worshipped under the names Baal
and Hubal, which is also why I think this info is supposed to be in conspiracies.

Baal, the god that many christians see as a spiritual being on the side of Satan (a demon) whos job it is to spread confusion and keep people away
from christianity, appeared to have vanished in history on first sight, but now, after closer inspection, it seems baal is still around today, with
just a different name, and more followers than ever.

Wether or not these christians are right may never be proven, but it sure is clear that the God of the bible is not the God of the Koran.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Jakko]

You may want to read Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief by Dr. Rodney Stark.

Most of the Greek Gods have their origins in Sumeria, so it wouldn't be surprizing to find Allah has a Sumerian basis. What seems to be the case is
Mohammed confused Baal with Yahweh, especially since he has contact with the Nestorian Christians up in the mountains around Mecca.

the bible was written between 1445 and 600 BC, and then 1200 years later along comes a man called Muhammed, spends a large amount of time meditating
in a cave, and then has his "moment" there are 2 sides to the story, and no real proof either way, its easy to pull apart the koran and the bible,
and the similarities between hubal and baal are striking, but with the amount of time that had passed and the existing community back then, its likely
muhammed merely used what was all around him and mixed in common knowledge - so is allah - baal - no one can say - but if you remove religion, use our
knowledge today and apply it to the question - then yes it probably might well be what muhammed did - had his "moment" told others - some belived
some laughed, but by using a well known "god" it was easier to get people to believe and thus islam was born.

Good discovery. We should realise by now that the wars between the Jews and the Moabites/Philistines/Canaanites never ended. Indeed the war that
started thousands of years ago is still being fought and soon reaching armageddon.

Isa (Jesus) said in....Luke 16:16 - The Law and the Prophets were until John the Baptist.

Isa(Jesus) openly declare to the followers, thousands of years ago and way before muhammad's greatgrandfather was born, that the last prophet was
John the Baptist thereby calling muhammad a false prophet.

And it also says in 2 John 2:22 that the KEY to spotting the Dajjal/Antichrist is the false prophet's rejection of the DEITI-HOOD of Isa(Jesus).

2 John 2:22 - Who is the Liar? He is the Antichrist who denies the Father(God) and the Son(Jesus).

Indeed, islam was established to reject the deity of Jesus and remove the realization of God's grace for humanity. And all muslims are taught to say
Jesus was not even crucified.

Stop to think historically, think SPIRITUALLY!!!
Sometimes I ask myself how followers of religions can be so naive.
Hubal and Allah, first, before to be or not to be gods, are SPIRITS.
In every tradition you have to call a spirit with his name, and symbolism or/and typical words to call him. (call, worship, what you want to do)
If the muslims were praying and worshiping all this time to HUBAL, he will be really tired and totally unsatisfied !!!
The spiritual world is working with high significating and powerfull symbols and "word-symbols". So if everybody says in arab that "Allah" is this
great god for the Christians (there is millions of christian arab using the word "Allah" every seconds), that the great god "Allah" can be
worshiped better than he is with the Judaic religion, that Allah is the god of Ibrahim (Abraham), that Allah this, Allah that... It will grow the
powerfull word-symbol "ALLAH" as THIS KIND OF GOD.
SO HOW CAN THE RIVAL OF "EL" (ANCIANT NAME FOR ALLAH IN HEBREW AND OTHER SIMILAR TONGUES) HOW CAN THE RIVAL OF "EL" BE SATISFIED WITH PEOPLE WHO
WORSHIP AN IMAGE SO FAR OF THIS RIVAL???
It's easy to understand that a name of a spirit or god or even demon ASSOCIATED with his world of meanings and associations which define him CAN
DEFINITELY NOT call another spirit (or god or demon).
It can only happen if the name is changed but not the symbols and significants.

Open the bible, read the first part and you will see also that the "god of armies" of Israel was also calling to kill and make war sometimes. He use
to hate Baal also...

Muslim worship God not any pagan idol from the fantasies of Muslim hating Christians.

Ishmael is the brother of Isaac. God promised Isaac AND Ishmael, the Arabs, that he would send guidance through both sons of Abraham.

This is just anti-Muslim Christian false dogma.

Muhammad cleared out the idols of the Kaaba, the house of Abraham.

He taught the purist form of the unity of God and didn’t mix it with worship of one of his creatures, Jesus.
So technically it is the Christians who are practicing paganism in worshiping Jesus rather than God.

I'm hearing you bro, some of these idiots should read the Qu'ran because it clearly proves that all these accusations are nothing but bs.. The guy
who started the Moon God nonsense was a self confessed Islamic scholar who got his unaccredited authority from a Christian Baptist University or
something lol. Idiots will believe anything these days.

Instead of spreading lies maybe they should work out why Christianity has Paganism right through it. 325a.d is a great start.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.